Exactly. Fraud is terrible in both cases, and should be a known factor so that we can evaluate how to procede.
For instance, aid to Sub-Saharan Africa constitutes roughly 70% of the budget of SSA countries. Illicit outflows of that aid money is increasing at a rate of 20% per year. I'm struggling to find the data about how much aid actually reaches the intended location, but it's significantly lower than one would hope for.
Sure, I think that foreign aid to developing countries should happen. But clearly the way that we're doing it right now is encouraging a self-perpetuating corruption economy. Burying my head in the sand about corruption of foreign aid wouldn't help anyone, just like merpnderp is saying.
I think you've laid out why corruption and fraud should always be a high priority to fight even when they are a low cost. Fraud is corrosive, and when left unchecked will expand. If a dentist can get away with 50 fake treatments at a nursing home one year, why would he shoot for 100 fake treatments the next, thus doubling his portion of the fraud.
Which is exactly what you've described in Africa. If a general can divert 20% of the aid to his offshore account one year, why would he shoot for 40% the next?
For instance, aid to Sub-Saharan Africa constitutes roughly 70% of the budget of SSA countries. Illicit outflows of that aid money is increasing at a rate of 20% per year. I'm struggling to find the data about how much aid actually reaches the intended location, but it's significantly lower than one would hope for.
Sure, I think that foreign aid to developing countries should happen. But clearly the way that we're doing it right now is encouraging a self-perpetuating corruption economy. Burying my head in the sand about corruption of foreign aid wouldn't help anyone, just like merpnderp is saying.